WI: Crusaders Failed to Take Constantinople in 1203-4

What kept Constantinople safe were its walls. Once the necessary cannon to knock down those walls come around, some power is going to take Constantinople eventually. I'd say it bought them a little time at most.

Why? How often did Comstantinople fall after the Turks took it? The city fell twice to foreign invaders (well, 1.5 times, since the Crusaders were originally putting a claimant on the throne), and only ome of those sieges involved gunpowder. After that, why, the city did just fine. Its only really at risk if its the center of a weakened state.
 
What kept Constantinople safe were its walls. Once the necessary cannon to knock down those walls come around, some power is going to take Constantinople eventually. I'd say it bought them a little time at most.



Wasn't there a known way to build walls to defend against cannon?
 
Wasn't there a known way to build walls to defend against cannon?
Yes and that's what they did during the last siege.

In 1453, the cannons crumbled the walls but it turns out that the broken down walls mied with earth were extremely resistant to cannon fire, way more than the original walls.

We have to remember Constantinople did not fall in 1453 because the walls got breached, it fell because of an open door
 
Yes and that's what they did during the last siege.

In 1453, the cannons crumbled the walls but it turns out that the broken down walls mied with earth were extremely resistant to cannon fire, way more than the original walls.

We have to remember Constantinople did not fall in 1453 because the walls got breached, it fell because of an open door

Once you reach 1453, Constantinople's fall was not because its walls were breached, or a gate was open, or anything like that. It fell because it was a gnat being crushed by a sledgehammer.
 
Once you reach 1453, Constantinople's fall was not because its walls were breached, or a gate was open, or anything like that. It fell because it was a gnat being crushed by a sledgehammer.
Sure it would have gotten destroyed the year after or something similar but the success of this particular attempt wasn't guaranteed.

The siege lasted a very long time after all, and a siege is hard to keep going. Mehmet II was pretty young and could have faced opposition.

Of course it will get taken but it can limp along a bit more
 
Would it have made any difference if Alexios V, someone more active, and arguably (well, maybe) more competent, overthrew the Angeloi earlier? I'm under the impression that a major problem with the Romans was bad, bad leadership, and therefore low morale. Ol' Big Eyebrows was not the best choice, but he might have been the better one of a sorry lot.

However, even if they do manage to hold off the Crusaders, the Romans are going to be in for a tough, rough time, with the West against them, and the Turks at the door.
 
One thing we should remember is the fourth Crusade was denounced by the Pope. If it fails, there will be no crusade directed to Constantinople.

And how exactly the Turks suppose to get there? They dont have ship at the time. So if Byzantium survive the 4th crusade, they should be save for a time.
 
Top